“Rachels and Brock” Rachels thesis is active euthanasia is morally permissible under conditions when passive euthanasia is morally permissble and the patient wants active euthanasia. Rachels argue there is not a difference between killing someone or letting one die( Rachels pg 649). Rachels makes reference to patients with terminal illness. Once treatment is no longer allievate pain, the patient and family is requesting help because of the suffering. Rachels introduce another point the Conventional Doctrine makes decisions concerning life or death on irrelevant grounds( Rachels pg. 650). To elaborate, two babies were born with congential defects but the second baby has down syndrome. Both babies can have simple surgeries to correct the
…show more content…
His thesis is active euthanasia is not morally permissible even when requested under the terms of informed consent. Callahan also believes euthanasia would add a whole new category of killing to a society that already has too many excuses to indulge itself in that way. Callahan feels in western thought there is three important turning points (Callahan pg 625). The first point is the laws that will give permission to one person to kill another. He terms this “consenting adult killing” (Callahan pg. 625). Callahan argues that this issue contradicts the government is trying to control guns and arms, abolish capital punishment, and to control warfare. The second point is in the meaning of “consenting adult killing” and decreases self-determination. Callahan feels that the law misleads the patient to feel they have autonomy thinking that the active euthanasia will help them reach the good life. The third point put pressure of the medical professional to achieve what the patient thinks is the good life. This point makes a patient think, escaping from personal life that is causing suffering instead of the pain from the sick of the body. Callahan feels that active euthanasia has no justifiable reason on why it would be right to legalize killing one another. Callahan objects to Rachels and Brock’s arguments for euthanasia. Rachels argument the value of self-determination justifies a right to voluntary active euthanasia.Callahan replies competent adults cannot consent to all things. Voluntary active euthanasia involves two parties the killer and the victim (Callahan pg. 626). The physician has to consent to killing the patient and patient has to consent to let the physician kill him. Callahan poses a question why would anyone consent to being the victim? Callahan writes, “consenting to adult killing, like consenting to adult slavery, or degradation, is a strange route to human dignity.” Rachels argues there is no
His thesis is active euthanasia is not morally permissible even when requested under the terms of informed consent. Callahan also believes euthanasia would add a whole new category of killing to a society that already has too many excuses to indulge itself in that way. Callahan feels in western thought there is three important turning points (Callahan pg 625). The first point is the laws that will give permission to one person to kill another. He terms this “consenting adult killing” (Callahan pg. 625). Callahan argues that this issue contradicts the government is trying to control guns and arms, abolish capital punishment, and to control warfare. The second point is in the meaning of “consenting adult killing” and decreases self-determination. Callahan feels that the law misleads the patient to feel they have autonomy thinking that the active euthanasia will help them reach the good life. The third point put pressure of the medical professional to achieve what the patient thinks is the good life. This point makes a patient think, escaping from personal life that is causing suffering instead of the pain from the sick of the body. Callahan feels that active euthanasia has no justifiable reason on why it would be right to legalize killing one another. Callahan objects to Rachels and Brock’s arguments for euthanasia. Rachels argument the value of self-determination justifies a right to voluntary active euthanasia.Callahan replies competent adults cannot consent to all things. Voluntary active euthanasia involves two parties the killer and the victim (Callahan pg. 626). The physician has to consent to killing the patient and patient has to consent to let the physician kill him. Callahan poses a question why would anyone consent to being the victim? Callahan writes, “consenting to adult killing, like consenting to adult slavery, or degradation, is a strange route to human dignity.” Rachels argues there is no